About your Search

20121208
20121208
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
view threaten u.s. interests in africa and require the attention of the government and the world. that's why we convened the hearing to assess and a path forward and stabilize the situation and to address ongoing humanitarian needs. i would like to welcome my friend and partner on the subcommittee senator ikesson and i understand we may well be joined by others and to thank our distinguished witnesses for sharing their insight and expertise. earlier this year, a security and political vacuum was exploited by extremists. today al qaeda and aqim and two affiliated groups control the majority of northern malli an area roughly the size of the state of texas making it the largest territory controlled by islamist extremists in the world. i am concerned the current approach is not comprehensive and forward leaning enough to address all threeze crises, security and plit and humanitarian. today we'll examine the policies. we'll assess evolving plans for a regionly led multilateral intervention and consider the complimentry goals of encouraging elections and restoring security by reclaiming the
: this is not a state issue. the u.s. supreme court, it comes to constitutional rights. it does not provide a ceiling. that means the state can only give more benefits to somebody through their state constitution. they cannot give less than what our courts have said. host: there is a story in the wall street journal talking about how the president is approaching fiscal cleft discussions. the headline says -- daniel, calif. on the independent line. caller: i am calling because i am a gay man. here in california in 2008, the principal reasons are that i view -- marriage is an institution primarily to guarantee the rights and the responsibilities of parents towards their children. you cannot find a structure superior to a mother and a father raising the children in the next generation. it is interesting listening to the arguments today. it just reminds me that we hold of the old individual rights and ultimately the courts in this nation should rule on the basis of feeling the that love in the case of gays or lesbians, the love knows no gender. the problem i have is if you apply those same arguments --if
is for the first time really being called out as a problem. >> dysfunction in the u.s. health-care industry. dr. marty makary on what hospitals will not tell you, tonight it 10:00 -- at 10:00. >> the supreme court will look at what happened in 2008, and they will say that this precedent. and indiana had -- >> when we talk about the facts, they decided on the indiana case it was constitutional for them to establish i.d. states who have subsequently -- >> correct, they talked about indiana -- let me finish because you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people -- voter i.d. laws disproportionately affect minorities -- it seems to me somehow we have something missing in our brain. to me, if white americans can go throughto voting all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left, that we always have to make special -- you know, there has to be a specialness when we deal with
the u.s. president should take a in terms of a more realistic, short-term approach to facing challenges are a long term visionary approach where the focus is on the future and where we are going in the next 10-20 years. which of the following approaches to you think a u.s. presidential candidate should take? you will see two options. should a u.s. president take a practical approach and difficult times addressing near-term challenges or a visionary approach focusing on long-term goals for the future and not losing perspective of where we want to go to? go ahead and text to 22333. the response code you agree with et.you can tweak at @gt we will see if it matches the opinion poll. a fair size minority, about the 44% felt short-term obstacles was the important focus of the nation. it looks like once again we have come close to the national poll with 67% of the audience i in the room and online voting for a visionary approach looking at long-term goals for the country instead of a short-term perspective. i think this would be another good thing for elected officials to keep a in mind as the
. mitchell, the u.s. department of transportation. second witness is susan fleming, director of physical temperature government accountability office. we are privileged to have as a witness paula hammond, washington state chair. and a light leader sheikh -- leadership group. then mr. edward hamberger. and ann schneider. i like to welcome all of the. we appreciate your patience. we have had some lively discussion today. there is a lot of interest in passenger rail service inner- city and high speed. we look forward to your contribution. if you have a lengthy statement that extends beyond five minutes, without objection it will all be considered as part of the record and included in the record. we welcome you. we will now begin and we will start with mitchell behm, the inspector general for rail maritime economic analysis at the department of transportation. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify in the implementation of the nation's high-speed intercity passenger rail program. since we raised concerns in 2010 about fra's ability to meet this challe
different laws than we do. if there say technology drain, it's also in terms of the u.s. laws we only prohibit certain type of technology that has to do with national security and technology. but when you talk in steve's case the talent of the invite tive things that get sucked out along with that, that's nobody really talks about that so i'd like to hear from you. >> it's true. what you are saying is true. it goes back to what i was saying the other countries are being a magnet for talent, there is no question about this so we have to recognize that is happening and make sure we're competitive. my own view is if people want to come here and get an education and go back to their country, fine, that is a way to build stronger committees in other parts of the world. that is part of our stated policy. having people come here if they want to go back and start companies there, that's fine. but we should at least give them the option of staying here. if they want to go back fine, but don't force them. encourage them to stay because we need smart people here working on these new technologies
and not half real plan spree did not have -- not have rail plans and. my concern is whether the u.s. has priorities of where to begin and where we would end. what we have seen in the past couple of years is no funding from the federal government. we really comment in some kind of dream of going, some of the state's will continue to move forward because even in the best circumstances as we approach the cliff, in not going over there will be very significant reductions in every kind of program made. that is the case. i need to hear the case for why we would prioritize at least one of the places you have funded that looks like it is ready to go and go with it. if you do not do that, you must have some view that some miracle is going to happen in the economy so at least the public sector will continue funding. i cannot see that. if it is not the case that we can expect public funding for all parts of the country and in next five years. let's take the near term. what do you think is the best way to proceed with what scarce funds you may recede? -- receive? we know this. if you start, we try t
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7